A verdict you decided on long before the trial started. You're mind has been closed to any alternative since the first report that "gun-toting white guy shoots little black kid in hoodie while he was eating skittles".

... and I don't think we should set the precedent for convicting people of crimes w/out requiring the State to prove all the lawful requirements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just not as simple and neat as you and Chico would like to make it.

I like that quote above, because in Zimmerman's mind he's already convicted Trayvon.

And it was time to dish out the punishment.

That's justice for ya

I shall defer to your incredible ability to read minds and acertain others' thoughts with incrediblle clarity and 100% certainty. It is a gift for I - even if I think what you say is more likely true than not - can only speculate as to what GZ was thinking and, thus, reasonably doubt the accuracy of my own conclusions.

I shall defer to your incredible ability to read minds and acertain others' thoughts with incrediblle clarity and 100% certainty. It is a gift for I - even if I think what you say is more likely true than not - can only speculate as to what GZ was thinking and, thus, reasonably doubt the accuracy of my own conclusions.

Again, I recommend the Ox-Bow Incident.

Seriously Joe? So just disregard that statement? Give me a break. The trial suffers from lack of evidence to find out why and how, but this statement given clearly over the phone is an indication what Zim was thinking. He's convicting Trayvon in his mind and he's tired of people getting away with crime. Its intent. period

He was talking about the people in the past that have broken into a house, car, etc... and I agree most of the time they do get away. Funy you seem to point that out but ignore the racial slur of Martin.

I have never doubted "there is enough to convict". People have been convicted of much worse on much less. On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt as to:

(1) Who initiated the conflict; and
(2) Whether Zimm's claim of self-defense was reasonable.

As with Chico, it's hard to consider your opinion as anything other than a foregone conclusion based on your initial and continuing characterizations of the individuals in this matter, your seeming refusal to look critically at your initial conclusions and your acceptance of several speculative assertions as fact coupled with your complete disregard for other facts, admitted into evidence, that are favorable to GZ.

Without completely changing the known facts, it seems to me that, for you and Chico at least, there is not, never has been and could never be, any scenario under which there could be any doubt as to what happened and how it happened on the night in question. Rather, IMHO, you have consistently filled in the speculative blanks based on your perceptions and assumptions of the individuals involved.

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, MUST do the same thing to convict.

I have always been open to a guilty verdict on either charge. Based on what I have seen, however, the State's has failed miserably at eliminating all reasonable doubt on the key elements the enumerated above.

Seriously Joe? So just disregard that statement? Give me a break. The trial suffers from lack of evidence to find out why and how, but this statement given clearly over the phone is an indication what Zim was thinking. He's convicting Trayvon in his mind and he's tired of people getting away with crime. Its intent. period

"This statement ... is an indication of what Zim was thinking." Absolutely, I agree. The key being "an indication".

"He's convicting Travon in his mind and he's tired of people getting away with crime.": Convicting Trayvon? Maybe, maybe not. I agree, it is more likely than not that - at that moment - he is assuming Martin is another vandal/criminal in the neighborhood. Further, it is more likely than not that this was not just a momentary, passing belief as the night proceeded. BUT ... So what? Was this conclusion, in and of itself, illegal? Based on his past experiences and the fact that recent break-ins had been perpetrated by black youths, was it a perception with no basis? It may have been incorrect, but was it irrational?

At the same time, unlikely as it seems, we both may be completely wrong in the assumptions we are making ... it may be a simple statement of frustration of the crimes he has experienced in his neighborhood unrelated to Trayvon - He didn't, for example, say "This kid always gets away" or "This is the guy and he always gets away" or any of a number of other statements which would more clearly state what you assert.

"It's intent. Period." Really, of what? That he is going to stop Trayvon from getting away? That he has specifically angry at Trayvon as opposed to others "who got away"? That he is angry that others actually did get away? That he will use whatever force necessary to restrain Trayvon until the police get here? Even it is a statement evidencing one of these - or some other - intent, how long does he hold this specific intent identified after this brief statement? Ten seconds? A minute? All the way through the engagment? Is it possible the specific intent you think he felt morphed into a different less sinister intent prior to the engagement. Does your every momentary expression anger and/or frustration guide your thoughts for an entire evening. Have you ever said something in the heat of the moment then, five minutes later, realized you may have been wrong?

To me, extrapolating anything beyond GZ's immediate belief that Trayvon is likely one of the kids responsible for recent break-ins is a HUGE speculative leap from the (more likely than not) reasonable assumption of GZ's belief which you state. We don't know if, in the moments before confronting TM, he questioned that belief - you certainly think he did not. For you, the one brief statement of anger and frustration is enough to assume GZ carried it on throughout the engagment. This is where you rely on speculation as to GZ's state of mind to fill in gaps in the events.

Again, to me, that statement is indicative of, and only of, exactly what you initially assert, anger and frustration over recent burglaries and a belief that TM is likely one of those responsible. That, however, in and of itself, is not indicative of an intent to physically assault or confront Martin. It may be, it may also be indicative of an intent to simply make sure he never loses sight of Martin. Hell, it may even be indicative of a resignation that "they" are likely to get away again this time and he is powerless to prevent it.

You read what you want into it, you are entitled to do so. Just don't tell me that you conclusion is anything better than an educated guess based on your personal perceptions of the individuals involved. You perceive, and have always perceived, GZ a gun-toting coward and TM as an innocent skittles eating kid and any gap in the timeline or thought process is filed in based on that perspective. Certainly, that is what it has seemed to me.

You're angry that TM died and it appears the guy you think is ultimately responsible may get off with no jail time. Fine, that is an entirely understandable emotion.

To me, however, regardless of the ensuing frustration no one should go to jail based on another's educated guesses.

1:51 p.m. ET: Di Maio says he can't say if the gun was pulled out of the holster by Zimmerman, just that there was a shot to Martin's chest.

"You can't tell that by any scientific method," said Di Maio.

1:54 p.m. ET: Di Maio can't say for sure what angle Martin was positioned at on top of Zimmerman, just that Martin was over Zimmerman when he was shot. He doesn't believe the two were standing at the time of the shooting, based on the evidence. He agrees that Martin could have been pulling away from Zimmerman when he was shot.

...

Quote:

2:25 p.m. ET: "Iím not going to base my opinions on the witnesses because witnesses are wrong all the time," said Di Maio. He says he bases his opinions on the evidence and facts.

2:28 p.m. ET: West is describing the testimony of another witness who said Zimmerman was on top and Martin was face-down when the shot was fired.

"No sir, it's not possible," said Di Maio. West says this is another example of a witness who had good intentions but got it wrong.

2:29 p.m. ET: Di Maio says another eye witness's testimony, John Good, is consistent with the evidence. Good said Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shot was fired, in a "ground and pound" type of position, striking Zimmerman.

Solid witness. Based on the responses, he seems a much more credible guy than Bao. Also, prosecution's cross not bad - limited and not going for any big points. Just some helpful puzzle pieces they can use in their closing.

I have never doubted "there is enough to convict". People have been convicted of much worse on much less. On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt as to:

(1) Who initiated the conflict; and
(2) Whether Zimm's claim of self-defense was reasonable.

As with Chico, it's hard to consider your opinion as anything other than a foregone conclusion based on your initial and continuing characterizations of the individuals in this matter, your seeming refusal to look critically at your initial conclusions and your acceptance of several speculative assertions as fact coupled with your complete disregard for other facts, admitted into evidence, that are favorable to GZ.

Without completely changing the known facts, it seems to me that, for you and Chico at least, there is not, never has been and could never be, any scenario under which there could be any doubt as to what happened and how it happened on the night in question. Rather, IMHO, you have consistently filled in the speculative blanks based on your perceptions and assumptions of the individuals involved.

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, MUST do the same thing to convict.

I have always been open to a guilty verdict on either charge. Based on what I have seen, however, the State's has failed miserably at eliminating all reasonable doubt on the key elements the enumerated above.

In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk. You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense